Misleading, Inaccurate, Distorted, and Uninformed Reporting

Kim Murphy’s article “Danger in Denying the Holocaust” could be dismissed as amateurish at best were it not the Jan. 7 Column One story of the Los Angeles Times. Because of where it appeared, some of the issues it raised must be addressed. She doesn’t present the stakes in the Irving vs. Lipstadt libel case and she falls into the traps set by the deniers, hook, line and sinker.

Continue reading

LA Times gets it wrong

Getting It Very Wrong

How and why the L.A. Times failed in its report on Holocaust deniers

By Tom Tugend, Contributing Editor

Balanced Coverage?

In its article on “Danger in Denying the Holocaust?”, did the Los Angeles Times exercise the traditional journalistic canon of presenting both sides of a contentious issue, or did the paper fall into the trap of giving obvious falsehood equal space with the truth?

To survivors and experts on the Holocaust, there is little doubt that the Times and reporter Kim Murphy gave credence to the lies of the deniers in the name of journalistic impartiality.

“It is a sign of immaturity, and inexperience on the reporter’s part, to try and balance everything, because there are some things that can’t be balanced,” says Arthur Stern, a veteran of Bergen-Belsen and a Jewish Federation lay leader.

[…]

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, faults the Times’ report on the same basis, and also charges that the article suffered from a glaring omission.

“The reporter left out the most crucial element, namely the confessions of the war criminals themselves,” says Cooper. “The Nazis left an extensive paper trail and there are any number of quotes and statements by Himmler, Goebbels and Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess, clearly documenting the extent of the Holocaust.”

[…]


Source:

The Jewish Journal (Los Angeles)

COVER STORY | | January 14, 2000

www.jewishjournal.com/cover.tt.1.14.0.htm

Did Six Million Die for This?

‘Holocaustology’ May Create a New Form of Anti-Semitism

www.jewishworldreview.com — THE HOLOCAUST DOMINATED the moral imagination of the 20th century. Before the rise of Hitler, anti-Semitism was a parochial concern of the Jews; after the war it was everyone’s concern, and everyone regarded it with horror. The cause of anti-Semitism is a mystery to most Jews and most Gentiles. One school of thought, wrongly, I believe, blames anti-Semitism on Christianity itself.

Continue reading

With firing, Israel takes stand in Judaism debate

Published Tuesday, November 23, 1999

San Jose Mercury News

JERUSALEM — The topic for the day in one Israeli army classroom was the status of women in Judaism. Sixty soldiers sat awaiting the lecture, part of an education series where attendance is mandatory.

The instructor, Lt. Gamliel Peretz, began by citing the traditional morning blessing in which, he said, all Jewish men thank God for not making them women. One young soldier, the teenage daughter of a Reform rabbi, raised her hand to challenge him. Not all Jews say that, she said. Some use an alternative blessing, which thanks God for making people as they are.

According to army records, the lieutenant, who is Orthodox, then said, “The Reform and Conservative are not Jews to me.” When the teenager and a friend stood to leave, the lieutenant reportedly followed them.

“The Reform and the Conservative caused the assimilation of 8 million Jews,” he continued, “and this was worse than the Holocaust, in which only 6 million people were killed.”

Monday, not even a week after the incident, the Israeli Defense Forces suspended Peretz and said he would be discharged from the military.

It was an unusually swift and resolute response, in which the Israeli army drew a clear boundary between acceptable and unacceptable discourse on religious pluralism, a sensitive issue in Israeli society.

This boundary is not often drawn in the Jewish homeland, where the state religious authorities are ultra-Orthodox and do not recognize the liberal Jewish movements to which most American Jews belong. And so representatives of Reform and Conservative Judaism expressed surprise and delight that their rights had been defended.

“Even in Israel, where there is such inequality in status between different streams of Judaism, it is, it seems, possible to go too far,” said Rabbi Richard A. Block, president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders do not believe that Reform and Conservative Judaism branches are Judaism at all, since they liberate Jews from the divine commandments and allow them individual autonomy in their religious observance.

The movements are so liberal, they say, that they have caused millions of Jews to disengage from Judaism, to assimilate and to intermarry.

Reform and Conservative leaders, who also fret about assimilation and intermarriage, contend that by adapting religion to modern life they are instead giving millions a way to remain Jewish.

Jonathan Rosenblum, a spokesman for an Orthodox media resource center, said he does not consider the lieutenant’s statements on assimilation to be “extreme” but condemned his comparison to the Holocaust.

“Holocaust metaphors should be basically out of bounds,” he said. On the other hand, Rosenblum said he detected “an aura of witch hunt in the rapidity with which Lieutenant Peretz was tried, expelled from the army and classified as some sort of pariah forever.”

In a statement issued Monday by the army, Brig. Gen. Elazar Stern said the lieutenant had apologized for the reference to the Holocaust but remained “steadfast” in his view that liberal Judaism had caused more damage than the Nazis to the future of the Jewish people.

“I explained to the officer that when an Israeli army officer uses the term Holocaust to describe phenomena that occur within the Jewish people, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand what the Holocaust is, what the Jewish people is, what the state of Israel is, or what the Israeli Defense Forces stand for,” the general said.

No ‘Mein Kampf’ But Adolf Cartoon Fine

No ‘Mein Kampf’ But Adolf Cartoon Fine

Updated 9:57 AM ET October 15, 1999

FRANKFURT (Reuters) — “Mein Kampf” may have been voted one of the 100 books that shaped the century — but it was no show on Friday for Adolf Hitler’s seminal work at the world’s biggest book fair.

There was no such problem, however, for Adolf the best-selling cartoon character who donned his German helmet time machine to travel “Back to the Future” from Paraguay to Sarajevo.

“Mein Kampf,” which Hitler wrote in prison several years before he led the Nazi party to power in 1933, is banned in Germany as hate literature.

The book trade quarterly Logos had chosen “Mein Kampf” as one of the century’s most influential books even though “it displays utter disdain for freedom and civil morality, virulent anti-Semitism.”

Logos editor Gordon Graham decided to display all 100 influential books in Frankfurt.

“Then a German friend told me you cannot exhibit ‘Mein Kampf.’ We took legal advice and were told it can only be exhibited under locked glass. So we have it hidden now. It is significant this should be happening after 50 years,” Graham said.

Fragments of a fraud

Christopher Hope called it “achingly beautiful”; the New York Times said it was written “with a poet’s vision; a child’s state of grace”; Anne Karpf in this paper described it as “one of the great works about the Holocaust”; all were agreed it was a masterpiece. There is just one problem — Binjamin Wilkomirski’s memoir of surviving as a Jewish child alone in the Nazi concentration camps of Majdanek and Auschwitz was a fabrication, invented from beginning to end, one of the great hoaxes in publishing history.

Continue reading

Stop ‘Holocaust obsession’

Williams as ‘Jakob the Liar.’

By Debbie Schlussel

Jewish World Review / Oct. 12, 1999 /2 Mar-Cheshvan, 5760

I HAVE A CONFESSION to make. Recently, I experimented with the latest product of a shameful industry. No, not porn. Though the experience did involve pictures — moving pictures.

I saw the movie, “Jakob the Liar.”

Starring Robin Williams, the talkie is the most recent output in a multi-media industry that has consumed not just Holywood, but large portions of the legal industry, the publishing world, etc. I refer to what my cousin, Menasheh, a Holocaust survivor, has dubbed the “Holocaust Business.”

[…]

Seriously, why did Williams participate in this farce? Because these days one can make any movie, whether it has redeeming artistic worth or not, if it’s about the Holocaust, it will be respected.

In Hollywood, it seems, you’ve really arrived when you’ve starred in a Holocaust movie.

Holocaust films are virtually guaranteed Oscar considerations.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Roberto Benigni and Liam Neeson. Did you ever hear of them before the hoopla surrounding “Life is Beautiful” and “Schindler’s List”? Didn’t think so.

“Schindler’s List” was moving, poignant, and a cinematic high point. It accurately and vividly depicted some of my grandfather’s own experiences during the Holocaust. But “Life is Beautiful”? It’s no surprise that before “Life is Beautiful,” Benigni’s biggest role was a rehash of the comedic, bumbling Inspector Clouseau in 1993’s “Son of the Pink Panther.” The Holocaust is not an Inspector Clouseau type of event, but Williams and Benigni have managed to turn it into one.

How many “clown” Holocaust movies must we endure? Even comedian Jerry Lewis has gotten in on the act. Actually, he pioneered this genre, starring in and producing the 1972 film, “The Day the Clown Cried,” in which an actual painted-face clown leads Jewish concentration camp kids into the gas chambers.

Oh, the movie was never released. In those days — way, way back in the 70s — you see, people would have been reviled — as they should be but aren’t these days — at such a prospect.

Reportedly, Lewis was on anti-depressant and not in his right mind when he made and funded his memorial to the Six Million.

Today, though, such a film is not an unfortunate, ill-advised mistake. It’s Academy Award material, and other than a sick obsession with the Holocaust, there can be no other reason why “Jakob” was produced.

Given this incessant obsession, you can’t help but be amused when comedians like Jerry Seinfeld poke fun at all of these Holocaust movies. He made an entire episode of his show mocking the outrage of others surrounding a romantic interlude he and a girlfriend had during a screening of “Schindler’s List.”

Sadly, the Holocaust preoccupation is not just an episode of “Seinfeld” or an interminable catalog of movies. Today, the Holocaust is big business with a complete product line. There are more people getting jobs based on the Holocaust. There are more lawyers filing lawsuits based on the Holocaust. And there are more films on the Holocaust. All of this while there are less and less Holocaust survivors still alive.

And let’s not forget the official U.S. National Holocaust Museum in Washington. Doesn’t this museum belong more appropriately in Germany, or in Austria — from where Hitler hailed and where, today, a fascist presidential candidate praised Hitler as a job provider and his S.S. Waffen as men of character.

Unfortunately, like some industries, the Holocaust has become a promising career path. There are people running a plethora of Holocaust organizations and foundations. They get grants and raise money in fundraising letters, so that “we will never forget.” There are a lot of careers built on this Holocaust Business.

Again, I have no problem with remembering history, including the great tragedies. But there is something really wrong about a people — the Jews — who, with such a rich religion, with such a rich history spanning thousands of years, when they replace that whole history with a few years in recent history, spanning less than a decade.

Today, while most Jews know little about their religion, and even less about the long-enduring history of the Jewish people, everyone knows about the Holocaust. And it seems that this event has not only become Jewish history — it has unfortunately become the Jewish religion.

There have been many other devastating tragedies in Jewish history — pogroms, Inquisitions, etc. In fact, most Jews don’t know about a Jewish tragedy equal to, if not worse than the Holocaust–the 12th Century wholesale massacre of the Oriental Jews of North Africa living in the Maghreb (now known as Morocco, Libya, and Tunisia). That massacre was committed by the Al-Mohad Arab Moslem dynasty, though, not the more politically correct far right-wing Nazi perpetrators. So the memory of those Jews is apparently not as important. The Holocaust Business is a politically correct industry.

It is a great shame when a few-year tragedy becomes our central focus, the central experience of a people with many achievements and positive events. But, again, it is even more lamentable, when the tragedy is pushed on others in the form of endless products.

Besides the movies, books, miniseries, etc., there are the trial lawyers and their class-action lawsuits. Again, though the numbers of Holocaust survivors who could benefit are growing very thin, every day there are more and more class-action lawsuits being filed against corporations who had any connections with the Holocaust, using slave labor, such as in the case of Ford Motor Company, or using the concentration camp inmates as human guinea pigs, such as in the case of Bayer.

Should these companies be punished for their wrongdoing? Sure. But should today’s stockholders and consumers of products of those companies — they would be the ones to ultimately bear the burden of the multi-million dollar awards and settlements — be punished for something which occurred before most of them were born and with which most had nothing to do?

Should greedy trial lawyers get millions for suffering during the Holocaust, when they never even experienced the pain of the Holocaust, and most of its victims are now dead and will never benefit from the lawsuits? And why did they wait all of these years to file these suits which could have provided a decent life for many of these deceased survivors?

Is it a coincidence that a primary lawyer filing these lawsuits — who has transformed these Holocaust suits into a career — is named Ed Fagan? Charles Dickens would be proud.

Remember Fagan from his Oliver Twist? Sad to say, but for lawyers, the Holocaust has become the new tobacco, the latest Oliver Twist from which to make an easy buck. Most of the Holocaust victims and survivors — who, again, are also mostly dead — would not want their memories to live on in this way, and like my grandfather, they would not want the Germans’ or corporations’ money.

Besides the trial lawyers, settlement terms of some of these cases provide that most of the money will end up going to liberal social causes and groups, anyway — hardly victims of the Holocaust. To the lawyers, the Holocaust is just another product to exploit.

Maybe Jerry Lewis’ clown Holocaust movie was just a good product, a good business decision, but before its time. After all, when the film was shot, Lewis owned a chain of child-and family-oriented movie theaters. He probably figured that if he threw in kids, a clown, and the Holocaust, the movie would make big bucks in those theaters.

With the success of “Life is Beautiful,” with the success of the Holocaust lawsuits, movies, careers, with the success of the whole set of Holocaust products, he’s probably kicking himself. Though it’s rumored that a few years ago, he, too, used his ridiculous movie to make money, by reportedly showing snippets of it during a French telethon. Et tu, Jerry?

It’s sad that the Holocaust has become just another business, just another subsidiary of the whole civil rights conglomerate. But there is hope. On its debut weekend, “Jakob the Liar” came in at a very disappointing eighth in the ranks of box office showings, with only $2.2 million in ticket sales.

Maybe “Jakob” will be the last Holocaust comedy, and maybe the consumers of the Holocaust Business are letting the producers know they are now growing tired of the product. I’m not holding my breath, though. I’m bracing for the day when I turn on my T.V. to see an infomercial touting the latest silly Holocaust product, an abomination to all who suffered through the tragedy.

Suicide Drama To Be Staged Posthumously In London

Suicide Drama To Be Staged Posthumously In London

LONDON (Reuters) — A leading London theater is to stage the last play of one of Britain’s most controversial writers — the tale of a suicide that Sarah Kane finished just one week before killing herself.

The 26-year-old playwright rose to fame and notoriety in 1995 with her first play “Blasted” that contained graphic scenes of sex and violence. “It is a feast of filth,” said one critic.

Her last work — “4:48 Psychosis” — was completed only a week before Kane took an overdose and then hanged herself in hospital with her own shoelaces.

She wrote at night in intense bursts, confessing: “I hate it. I get no pleasure from writing. It kills me.”

The play, which is being staged by the ground-breaking Royal Court Theater as part of its new season, deals with the pain of love and ends with the heartbroken heroine killing herself.

Being in love was like being in Auschwitz,” she said of the play’s theme.

Updated 10:58 AM ET September 21, 1999